Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
Help choosing a camera needed.
Hi guys, can anyone recommend a cheap digital camera that will take low light level pictures.
I want to take some pictures of a fox, that frequents our neighbourhood in the evenings, without using a flash to startle it.
Anything around 5Mpixel should do, it doesn't have to be too posh/state of the art and diffinately cheap as it's only for this project.
Any advice greatly appreciated as I know bugger all about digital cameras.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 01:04 PM |
|
|
The problem with cheap basic digital cameras, is that the light sensitivity wont be adjustable, so if you try to take a picture without flash, it
won't come out. The Mrs has a Canon g9 (not cheap), and with a few tweaks, it will take fantastic photos in he dark, with the exposure settings
changed. I would look for a camera that has adjustable exposure settings, or at the very least, adjustable ISO settings.
One importnt thing, get a tripod - you will not be able to hold the camera for long enough without shaking it....
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 01:06 PM |
|
|
Recently replaced my old Panasonic Lumix 4mp camera with a Canon Powershot A550 7mp. About £125 IIRC. Works well indoors without the flash and is
relatively quick between shots (something to consider if you're trying to capture wildlife).
Pixmania seemed to be the best value online seller at the time and have also served friends and family well too.
ETA - as above the Canon has adjustable ISO and exposure settings as well as auto modes for snapping. Good point too on using a tripod it makes a
huge difference to the quality of the pictures. Needen't be dear either - £20 should get you a basic shorty tripod.
[Edited on 13/1/09 by nick205]
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 01:08 PM |
|
|
Without a flash you will struggle to get a good picture. Why not leave a lamp shining out a window, it’ll get use to it very quickly or just ignore
it. Best to use a 10 second timer for this as that way the camera will get some piece to take the picture without being wobbled. You need one that has
variable exposure rates or a night sky mode.
Why do you want to take a picture of a fox? Oh unless its not that kind of fox!  NO! you pervy peeping tom!! No wonder you don’t want it to flash…
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 01:38 PM |
|
|
anyone got a cam corder you can borrow with night vision? mine works well for nocturnal video making.
You can then take stills from the video.
|
|
|
carpmart
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 01:42 PM |
|
|
Don't buy new buy second hand. My Cannon G1 is excellent for low light levels and really has the functionality/control of a Digital SLR, except
you can't change the lense.
there must be some of these on Ebay?
Look at this below!
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-Powershot-G1-NO-RESERVE-STARTS-AT-99p_W0QQitemZ180319176027QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCamera
s_JN?hash=item180319176027&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1300|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318
You only live once - make the most of it!
Radical Clubsport, Kwaker motor
'94 MX5 MK1, 1.8
F10 M5 - 600bhp Daily Hack 
Range Rover Sport - Wife's Car
Mercedes A class - Son's Car
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 01:45 PM |
|
|
Do you need to go digital?
Any old 35mm camera can be loaded with infra-red film and you can buy an infra-red lamp easily enough.
You'd have to send the film off for developing rather than use a local place, but that doesn't really matter. You can always scan them
later.
Alternatively, how about video - apparently many vdeo cameras can see infra-red ... you can test this by filming the end of a remote control while you
press buttons.
|
|
|
stevebubs
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 01:55 PM |
|
|
Some sort of CCTV camera would give you a decent picture (albeit not of exactly huge quality)
Bullet cams are relatively in-expensive....
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 02:10 PM |
|
|
WOW! Cheers guys, certainly food for thought there......
I shall away now to ponder your collective wisdom.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 06:31 PM |
|
|
If you need a fast enough shutter speed to capture a fox scurrying about, then unfortunately, cheap and good low-light performance is pretty much a
contradiction!  Good low light performance = big high quality sensor and big wide aperture (fast) lenses = expensive!
If mr fox will happily stand very still and pose, then anything capable of taking a long exposure on a tripod (or any other suitable support) will do
the job!
Only other options are coaxing him into some light as mentioned above, or being prepared to flash him (which may damage a nocturnal animal's
eyes). Might have to go infra-red.
Liam
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
The 'Locost' option then, to get what I want, is a s/hand camera that was 'state of the art' a couople of years ago.
Cheers guys.
Now sufing in the bay of E.
[Edited on 13/1/09 by Confused but excited.]
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 07:52 PM |
|
|
Hmmm - maybe foxes don't mind being flashed...
Bit of googling
Or maybe there are a load of blind foxes wandering about?
Liam
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 08:10 PM |
|
|
Nope - apparently you can't permanently damage animal's eyes with a flash...
More googling
It's just not very nice.
Hmmm what else can I do to put off finishing this dull report I'm writing...
|
|
|
